1 files changed, 115 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc545.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc545.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1d83ba1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc545.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         J. Pickens
+Request for Comments: 545               UCSB Computer Systems Laboratory
+NIC:  17791                                                 23 July 1973
+References: RFC 531,369. 519
+
+
+
+            OF WHAT QUALITY BE THE UCSB RESOURCE EVALUATORS?
+                    A Response to "Feast of Famine"
+
+   In RFC 531, M.A. Padlipsky complains that the UCSB resource
+   evaluators were derelict in not consulting the Resource Notebook for
+   available documentation.  In addition, Padlipsky equates the goals of
+   the resource evaluators to the goals of the software repository
+   advocaters.  A misunderstanding exists and perhaps, with this note,
+   may be cleared.
+
+   To respond to Padlipsky's example of UCSB botching login attempts let
+   me make two comments.  First, more people than the resource
+   evaluators were accessing the ARPANET.  The group of evaluators, at
+   least, knew the login procedure from the Resource Notebook. (By the
+   way, we do have a Multics Programmers Manual.) Second, the OLS TELNET
+   echoes no lower case, which can generate confusion.  Even UCSB's
+   technical liaison, after consulting the Resource Notebook, managed to
+   botch his login.
+
+   The first law of resource evaluation, at least for UCSB evaluators,
+   is "read the Resource Notebook!" (RFC 369, incidentally, was based on
+   a Resource Notebook that was barren compared to the notebook of
+   today.)  Questions left unanswered by the Notebook are resolved by
+   accessing online documentation first at the NIC and second at the
+   site being evaluated.  If, after all this effort, questions still
+   exist, then a consultant is contacted.  Consultation may be either
+   online or by telephone and may entail purchasing appropriate user
+   manuals (for some of the resources we evaluated, no manuals existed).
+   Our approach has been to consult the most publicly available
+   documentation first.  Only if the advertised paths fail do we resort
+   to personal contact with a (busy) technical liaison.  If technical
+   liaisons wish to be consultants for uninitiated users and feel that
+   this is their role we will gladly modify our behavior.
+
+   There certainly is a meal, to use Padlipsky's analogy, of
+   documentation already available on the Network.  However, a meal is
+   no good without silverware.  Site specific and function specific
+   MINIMANS (see RFC 369 and RFC 519) are attempts to provide this
+   tableware.  Our first-pass MINIMANS are available on request for
+   those who would like to see what we are trying to do.
+
+
+
+
+Pickens                                                         [Page 1]
+
+RFC 545               OF WHAT QUALITY BE THE UCSB           23 July 1973
+
+
+   Resource evaluators are concerned with much more than documentation.
+   A closer reading of prior RFC's would have shown that we investigate
+   dynamic phenomenon such as help facilities, online consultation,
+   response time, reliability, and human engineering.  We make
+   suggestions for improvement.  Indeed we see ourselves, at least for
+   UCSB users, in the role of plain clothes inspector.  We don't claim
+   absolute efficiency but we do claim good intent and good results.  We
+   have spurred improvements at local as well as foreign network sites.
+   We apologize to any we may have offended in the past with poor
+   reviews.  We are learning, continually, how best to say things in a
+   constructive rather than destructive way.
+
+
+         [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
+        [ into the online RFC archives by Javier Echeverria 2/98 ]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Pickens                                                         [Page 2]
+